Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Solution to the Ozone Problem


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 30 August 2004 - 01:41 PM

"Reducing the number of cars and trucks on the road should be the focus of efforts to lower ozone in Tarrant County, according to a study released in March by a national public advocacy group.

The study found that automobiles in Fort Worth and Arlington contribute more to ozone levels than in any other major metropolitan area in Texas. The main culprits are nitrogen oxides -- the chief man-made component of ozone."


Fort Worth Star-Telegram Article

My solution is to put more jobs and entertainment in downtown Fort Worth.

#2 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 30 August 2004 - 05:32 PM

I think scientists just need to get off their lazy a$$es and perfect hydrogen powered cars... <_<

#3 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 30 August 2004 - 05:34 PM

A necessary additional solution is to create walkable neighborhoods with centrally located employment, retail, and recreational centers with easy access to public transit and arterial streets in newly developing outlying areas.

#4 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 30 August 2004 - 05:52 PM

The problem with hydrogen is that it requires energy to produce. Unless hydrogen is produced using non-carbon energy resources, it's production will only relocate the problem elsewhere. If everyone's car used hydrogen fuel cell capability, TXU would never have been able to retire the plant on N. Main. The streets would be free from tailpipe emissions, but the city would be filled with smokestack emissions instead, whether generated locally or blown in on the winds from elsewhere.

Also, non-carbon energy resources have their own drawbacks and are not necessarily "green." Abundant, affordable, environmentally friendly energy is still the Holy Grail of the economy and will continue to be for quite some time in the future.

#5 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 30 August 2004 - 08:02 PM

A necessary additional solution is to create walkable neighborhoods with centrally located employment, retail, and recreational centers with easy access to public transit and arterial streets in newly developing outlying areas.

Yeah, that's New Urbanism, and quite frankly I hate it more than sprawl. I think dense developments should be focalized in the central city before they get to the suburbs. A dense development 20 miles away from downtown is just as bad as a subdivision the same distance...assuming the development doesn't include substantial employment.

That's just my philosophy.

#6 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 30 August 2004 - 09:55 PM

A necessary additional solution is to create walkable neighborhoods with centrally located employment, retail, and recreational centers with easy access to public transit and arterial streets in newly developing outlying areas.


Ohhhh yeah, and we can be just like Arlington! NO, HORRIBLE idea! that type of property rapidly decays and depreciates. We need mature neighborhoods close to a central city with mass transit EVERYWHERE.

#7 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 30 August 2004 - 10:49 PM

Hmmm, I don't know about any of you but I have used wind-generated power since I moved into my current home. The company, Green Mountain Energy, is building a new windmill farm out in Brazos Texas, and has invested in photovoltaic mass arrays on rooftops leased from shopping centers in some parts of the country. I am currently looking into low voltage home lighting, initially for the outside lights, as a way to cut down the electric bills. At some point those systems could be tied into roof-mounted solar panels, but they are still quite expensive right now.

As far as cars, I finally realized what a hypocrite I was being by driving a Chevy Z71 truck around for commuting and daily business and spent a few grand on a used, late year-model Honda CRX. I can't believe the money I am saving, and wear and tear on the truck is saved for expeditions into mountain country when it is really needed. Oops, don't forget bicycle power! A backpack and a bike and a short, fast ride each day eliminates the need for full-blown shopping expeditions, or at least puts it off a while. Get out and ride, don't drive!

WOOF

Pup

#8 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 05:24 AM

Johnnyrules wrote:

(normanfd @ Aug 30 2004, 06:34 PM)
A necessary additional solution is to create walkable neighborhoods with centrally located employment, retail, and recreational centers with easy access to public transit and arterial streets in newly developing outlying areas.


Yeah, that's New Urbanism, and quite frankly I hate it more than sprawl. I think dense developments should be focalized in the central city before they get to the suburbs. A dense development 20 miles away from downtown is just as bad as a subdivision the same distance...assuming the development doesn't include substantial employment.


That last assumption is one that norman had listed, but it's an important point. And I will add that you really need it to be diverse employment as well. Imagine if Dallas's Telecom Corridor was actually set up as a "New Urban" village. Looks good until a downturn in that sector. Then the values all plummet as people move away. Problem is, you can't really just build such a place. It has to grow. So how do we grow a diversely populated walkable utopia?

My though is that you start with the employment. After all, that works in real life without any government action: people move to where the jobs are. How close they live and in what manner; there's the real issue.

Alliance has been developed with a bunch of widely spread out campuses. It is impossible to walk from a residence to an employer because the layout is in huge chunks of exclusive land uses. The commercial development part will be similar, so that part of the county will require a car for every aspect of life away from one's own house. But the residential component is being successful overall because of location (i.e. central to Alliance, and the Airport with a pretty good commute to Lockheed on FW's west side) and because owning and operating at least two cars is possible for everyone there. On the other hand, the metroplex's northern suburbia has the worst of our ozone (mostly due to the fact that light southerly breezes accompany our hottest days).

Due to the spread out nature of Alliance, it cannot be served by public transportation, either. So unless something changes that area will continue to produce a lot of automotive exhaust.

The first step toward solving the ozone problem is to recognize the vital role that land use plays in the problem. And that is the part that our "leadership" absolutely refuses to acknowledge. I say that from the perspective of having dealt with mayors, county commissioners and so forth from across the metroplex. To them, land use planning is a third rail.

So here's the question to ask about the metroplex: What are we doing that shows a departure from becoming Los Angeles without mountains or beaches?
And here's my answer so far: nothing.

#9 rantanamo

rantanamo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:05 PM

^See Eastside Village, future of Las Colinas, Mockingbird Station, Park Lane Place, WV/Cityplace, etc. That's what the metroplex can do as a start. Step-by-step.

#10 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:29 PM

Dallas is where it will happen first. If Dallas wishes to continue growing, its only options now are to grow upward and increase density, reinvest in South Dallas, or grow to the southeast (enroll your kids in Wilmer-Hutchins schools, anyone?). Otherwise, Dallas' tax base will stagnate and city services will become spartan.

#11 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 31 August 2004 - 03:34 PM

I think we get ahead of ourselves when we argue about which style is better than the other. ;)

The reality in Fort Worth is that sprawl is alive and in effect and it's not about to change. :blink:

Don't forget that we are the most disrespected city in America and I would welcome just about any new development. :cry:

#12 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 31 August 2004 - 03:54 PM

That last assumption is one that norman had listed, but it's an important point. And I will add that you really need it to be diverse employment as well. Imagine if Dallas's Telecom Corridor was actually set up as a "New Urban" village. Looks good until a downturn in that sector. Then the values all plummet as people move away.  Problem is, you can't really just build such a place. It has to grow. So how do we grow a diversely populated walkable utopia?

My though is that you start with the employment. After all, that works in real life without any government action: people move to where the jobs are. How close they live and in what manner; there's the real issue.

Alliance has been developed with a bunch of widely spread out campuses. It is impossible to walk from a residence to an employer because the layout is in huge chunks of exclusive land uses. The commercial development part will be similar, so that part of the county will require a car for every aspect of life away from one's own house. But the residential component is being successful overall because of location (i.e. central to Alliance, and the Airport with a pretty good commute to Lockheed on FW's west side) and because owning and operating at least two cars is possible for everyone there. On the other hand, the metroplex's northern suburbia has the worst of our ozone (mostly due to the fact that light southerly breezes accompany our hottest days).

Due to the spread out nature of Alliance, it cannot be served by public transportation, either. So unless something changes that area will continue to produce a lot of automotive exhaust.

The first step toward solving the ozone problem is to recognize the vital role that land use plays in the problem. And that is the part that our "leadership" absolutely refuses to acknowledge.  I say that from the perspective of having dealt with mayors, county commissioners and so forth from across the metroplex. To them, land use planning is a third rail.

So here's the question to ask about the metroplex: What are we doing that shows a departure from becoming Los Angeles without mountains or beaches?
And here's my answer so far: nothing.

Alright, so if we create lots of employment out in the country and promote dense urban villages around them...what happens to the center city? Why on earth would any forward thinking city focus it's attention on the suburbs anyways, the focus should be on fixing the damage the suburbs did to the center city first, and then once that's accomplished, we can go about making the suburbs dense.

And be honest, what major urban city DOESN'T have rampant sprawl, hm? Chicago? Has it. NYC? Has it. Philadelphia? Has it. Oh, and Los Angeles actually has the densest metro in the country, if that's worth anything.

#13 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:06 PM

Dallas is where it will happen first. If Dallas wishes to continue growing, its only options now are to grow upward and increase density, reinvest in South Dallas, or grow to the southeast (enroll your kids in Wilmer-Hutchins schools, anyone?). Otherwise, Dallas' tax base will stagnate and city services will become spartan.

Why does it have to happen in Dallas first? Fort Worth is doing tons of stuff to grow urbanly too, but it's definately not landlocked...

#14 ILoveAJuggalo1569

ILoveAJuggalo1569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Everman
  • Interests:Playing softball!

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:40 PM

What I don't get is people taking all this government money just to make TAKS test, and all these people get paid all this money and yet nobody really seems to care about the environment enough to actually put some money into making our world a better place to live.
Everman High School C/O "06"

#15 rantanamo

rantanamo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 31 August 2004 - 05:02 PM

Why does it have to happen in Dallas first? Fort Worth is doing tons of stuff to grow urbanly too, but it's definately not landlocked...

It doesn't have to in Dallas first, but Dallas has some important mechanism in place to accelerate it: rail, lack of land, and developer experience throughout the city. Its not a knock against FW at all, more like Dallas only has one direction to grow north of I-30.

#16 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 01 September 2004 - 01:00 AM

It doesn't have to in Dallas first, but Dallas has some important mechanism in place to accelerate it: rail, lack of land, and developer experience throughout the city. Its not a knock against FW at all, more like Dallas only has one direction to grow north of I-30.

I was mentioning the City of Dallas itself, not its suburbs. Obviously, the metro area has grown over half way to OK to the north, but how does that benefit Dallas residents? I'm specifically commenting on the future quality of life of those who choose to live within Dallas proper.

#17 rantanamo

rantanamo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 01 September 2004 - 02:57 PM

I was mentioning the City of Dallas itself, not its suburbs. Obviously, the metro area has grown over half way to OK to the north, but how does that benefit Dallas residents? I'm specifically commenting on the future quality of life of those who choose to live within Dallas proper.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. In Dallas proper, south of I-30 has lots of undeveloped land in the southwest and southeast. And you're starting to see new suburban type subdivisions there. But in Dallas proper, north of I-30, land is very expensive and open land very rare, so the only way to grow is up. The neighborhoods north and east of downtown have rapidly grown dense over the last 5 years pretty much unknown to most even in Dallas and the rest of the metroplex. When I first moved to Dallas in 2001 I was really surprised at what was happening, and it has only accelerated. So that's what I was saying, north of I-30, Dallas can only grow up and dense, and it is.

#18 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,667 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 01 September 2004 - 11:43 PM

As far as cars, I finally realized what a hypocrite I was being by driving a Chevy Z71 truck around for commuting and daily business and spent a few grand on a used, late year-model Honda CRX. I can't believe the money I am saving, and wear and tear on the truck is saved for expeditions into mountain country when it is really needed. Oops, don't forget bicycle power! A backpack and a bike and a short, fast ride each day eliminates the need for full-blown shopping expeditions, or at least puts it off a while. Get out and ride, don't drive!


Bravo Pup! You're dead correct - the miles we are driving and the vehicles we choose to drive are killing our air locally (and the ozone layer globally). I agree that we should all make a serious effort to drive (and run our engines) as little as possible and choose vehicles that are more fuel efficient.

Today, many people do absolutely need to drive trucks or SUVs, however many, many people drive them only out of personal preference - a direct contributer to our worsening air.
Their choice results in approximately 25-50% more air pollution coming out of their tailpipes and makes a big impact on the air we all breath. (e.g. A big Volvo station wagon gets approx 22 mpg vs. a Tahoe/Expedition that get approx 16 mpg. - both are safe and offer good cargo space) There is a direct relationship between mileage and air polution b/c the amount of fuel burned is the important factor.

I will have begun (and will try to do a better job) to drive a lot less, and make a point not to let my car idle unless totally necessary (i.e. walk in stores rather than drive-throughs). And yes - riding bikes is even better.

#19 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2004 - 05:52 AM

On days with high ozone there is an increase in people requiring treatment for breathing distress. They are children and old people, mostly, i.e. some of the less powerful among us.

When companies do their comparisons of places to locate, air quality is certainly on the list of considerations. I understand that was a significant factor in Toyota choosing San Antonio over the metroplex for a new vehicle assembly plant.

Yes, we can do our parts as individuals, but I am afraid the concerned citizens willing to make a change on their own is a small percentage and cannot solve the problem.

So:
1) Do we tax gasoline higher to make it less attractive to drive? After all, the real cost of gasoline (inflation adjusted) is at a very low level.
2) Do we require "clean" formula fuels like those required in California?
3) Do we require "California" engines for all new cars? (I think there is still a difference although that might have gone by the wayside).
4) Do we throw a "no development" ring around every town for 100 miles and force densification wherever development has already occurred?

The LA region is better off than it was by applying the first three of those options. It saw an improvement in air quality until last year. The scary part is that their air quality may be on the way back down even with all the measures in place. So they don't have anything left in the tool bag, so to speak. What's next?

The point is, it's no secret what's going on, and it's well understood what can be done about it. What's lacking is enough sick kids or enough economic impact to move people off dead center. Frankly, given what I've seen of human behavior, it will take a crisis to cause any action.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users